User talk:HarryPotterRules1
Welcome Hi, welcome to Downton Abbey Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Martha Levinson page. If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia. Happy editing, LexiLexi (help forum | blog) Sybil Thanks for getting back to me (love your username, by the way). It appears there's some discrepancy about Sybil's age, because in 1x07, Robert says Cora hasn't been pregnant for 18 years. Since assumedly he is talking about when Cora was pregnant with Sybil, that would mean she, Sybil, is 17-18 years old at that time. That episode was set in 1914, meaning Sybil would have been born in either 1896 or 1897, so Sybil would have been 22 or 23 in 2x07. You're right that Mary said she was 21 in that episode, but I think what she meant was that she was over 21. Either that, or Julian Fellowes just can't remember her age. Hopefully we can get this worked out! Thanks again for getting back to me. Emma I enjoy poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick. 03:00, March 20, 2012 (UTC) --- It was no trouble; I had found this source before, but didn't know how to put it up, I have found out how now. Look right --------------> Does this perhaps help? I was able to find this on the internet. This is where I found it, so you can have a look yourself: The three sisters were interviewed for the Radio Times at the end of last October before final Episode for S2 was aired in UK and set in early 1919. *'JBF says Sybil is 21 http://jessicabfindlay.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=3816&fullsize=1 *Laura says Edith was born in 1894, so in 1919 she'd be 25: http://jessicabfindlay.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=3814&fullsize=1 *Michelle says Mary is 27: http://jessicabfindlay.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=3815&fullsize=1 These dates pretty much confirm that Mary was born in 1982, Edith was born in 1894 and Sybil was born in 1898. Hope the image helps. Yours, HarryPotterRules1 03:58, March 20, 2012 (UTC) P.S. Glad you love my name. Assumption and leaps How can we assume that Robert has only one aunt simply based on Roberta being only mentioned on screen. Susan could easily be the daughter of another sister or Violet's brother. Violet mentioned Roberta in passing to make a point rather then an extensive family tree, but she never tells the Crawley sisters that Roberta was your one and only aunt. Also Major Gordon says he is connected to Downton Abbey, which is the Crawley family, so it's seems odd to assume that he'd be related to Violet, a Crawley by marriage, and therefore why would Edith tell him about an aunt who married a Gordon that was a Crawley relation. Also why couldn't Robert's father have been inherited the Earldom from his grandfather or his great-uncle since his father was already dead rather then father to son. I can assumed that Robert's father was the son of an Earl, but inherited from another relative since it would explain why Robert's grandmother lived at Crawley House in Downton village rather then the Dower House. I'm not saying the Earldom hasn't been passed down father to son in each generation, but I'm just saying he don't know either way so let's not assume since how Reginald and Robert are related isn't the same as how the Earldom has passed from one Earl to the next. That's what fanfic is for.CestWhat (talk) 03:19, September 2, 2012 (UTC) Remember, Patrick Gordon ISN'T being Patrick Gordon, that's a false name - he's pretending to be Patrick and connected to Downton Abbey - and Edith NEVER states which side the aunt is on. The press pack (which came out at the beginning of the series), confirms that Patrick Crawley, Earl of Grantham, is in direct line; Matthew is the first time it's had to leave the main line. Patrick's grandmother may still have been alive at the time of Violet's marriage and was living in the dower house, meaning her daughter-in-law (and Violet's mother-in-law) had to live in Crawley House. We know, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that the way I show IS how they're related; we know this for three reasons 1) Violet says she doesn't want to see Downton go to a complete stranger - this would have happened BEFORE if Patrick had not inherited it from his father. 2) As I have shown on the tree, Robert's third cousin is Reginald - so since Patrick Crawley, Earl of Grantham is in direct line; he and Reginald HAVE to descend from 2nd Earl for Matthew and Mary to be 4th cousins and for Matthew to be Robert's third cousin-once-removed.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:33, September 2, 2012 (UTC) Again, Violet can easily have another sister or a brother who is the parent of Susan. The Gordon aunt can easily be totally unrelated to Susan or her mother. Robert is a direct-line descend from the 1st Earl doesn't mean that his father couldn't have inherited the earldom from his grandfather rather than his father. And Violet talking about a stranger isn't the same as a third cousin you've never met compared to a grandson of your dead son inheriting your estate before Violet even married the Earl of the Grantham. This isn't a situation where I'm saying I'm right or you’re wrong. You can dead right, but it's never said either way on the show and let's not assume. CestWhat (talk) 03:57, September 2, 2012 (UTC) Patrick is the FIFTH Earl; so, as shown by the picture I posted, it has to be a direct descent, otherwise a) Patrick would not be The Fifth Earl and b) Robert and Reginald would NOT be third cousins; that much is know, so please, stop removing it for heavens sakes! The picture shows that it HAS TO BE A DIRECT LINE for Reginald and Robert to be 3rd cousins; there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY! No other siblings of Violet are mentioned, and do remember, Robert would KNOW of his mother and father's family - Patrick, his father, had ONE sibling, a brother, who was the father of James and the Grandfather of Patrick who died on the Titanic. This, given that Robert never states he has any other aunts, means that Roberta, as the only aunt mentioned, must be the one Edith meant and must be the mother of Susan.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:02, September 2, 2012 (UTC) There are countless different ways how the Earldom has passed down. I'm agreeing that Matthew and Robert and third cousins, once removed. That isn't the same as who each of them is related the 2nd Earl of Grantham. Nor have you really shown how Roberta is named Gordon simply because another aunt isn't mentioned, doesn't mean no other aunt exists. Nor it shown that Violet didn't have a brother who could just as easily be Susan's father.CestWhat (talk) 05:02, September 2, 2012 (UTC) As you can plainly see here, THIS is how they are related; If the earldom had passed to a brother (or uncle, nephew, etc), then it would not be such an "OMG! STRANGER HAS TITLE!" moment, for Matthew to eventually inherit; this means it MUST be a direct line with no breaks since 2nd Earl. As well as this, it's stated by the show that Patrick is only inheriting because Robert has no sons. This, is the first time it's happened. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:20, September 2, 2012 (UTC) No, I can't plainly see because my version is just as plausible. Again, a younger brother, a nephew or a grandson who you've known all your life are not "a stranger" in the way a third cousin, once removed you've never met is and also Violet only married into the family and therefore isn't speaking about things that happened generations before her time at Downton Abbey. CestWhat (talk) 05:24, September 2, 2012 (UTC) This is the tree, or rather, what we definitely know: See?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 09:15, September 2, 2012 (UTC) Admin Election Hey HarryPotterRules1. I created a forum about the adminship issue and the current adoption requests so that we can make a community decision and resolve the dilemmas between you and CestWhat. Hope to see you there :-) -- 06:37, September 24, 2012 (UTC) HPR, where did you find the info that Robert's father's name was Patrick, please? I didn't find it; it appeared at the same time that Cora's father name (Isidore Levinson) turned up. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:45, October 18, 2012 (UTC) RE:Patrick marriage/death issue If I might respond to your counterargument: 1) I never claimed nor implied Violet was giving us rough approximates and not precise dates. I also never claimed that Violet and Patrick did not marry in 1869. Until this part, we concur. What I don't think you have understood is that in 1869, at the time of his marriage with Violet, Patrick may have not be Earl yet, and still be Viscount Downton. Violet would only start running Downton Abbey when she became Countess of Grantham -- which would be when Patrick became Earl; not before (to understand it, make the Violet-Cora paralellism: when Cora married Robert, Robert was not Earl of Grantham yet and, because of this, Cora did not become Countess immediately when she married him -- she only became Countess (and effectively started running Downton) when Robert became Earl. The same reasoning could apply to Violet and Patrick, as nothing in canon tells us that Patrick was already the Earl when he married to Violet). Notice that my reasoning allows us to respect the thirty-year period when Violet was Countess (not Dowager Countess): for instance; they were married in 1869 and (let's suppose for the sake of demonstrating the argument) Patrick became Earl a year later, in 1870. Then, Patrick would have died 30 years later, in 1900. So, we conclude this: As you see, the year 1899 is merely the earliest possible year for Patrick's death -- not the conclusive, certain, actual year that he died. 2) Although I wasn't arguing about Sybil's year of birth, let me respond: If Sybil was 21 years old in April, 1919, then she couldn't have been born in 1898 at all. Sybil was born in June, and if she was born in 1898, she would only turn 21 in June of 1919, meaning that in April she would still be 20 -- for her to be 21 in April of 1919, she had to have celebrated her 21st birthday in June, 1918. That being said, Sybil was born in either 1896 (supported by Robert's remark after Sybil's death) or 1897 (supported by Mary's remark). If you ask me, I'd take Robert's date as the most reasonable/credible, even if that makes Sybil's first season to be around her 18th birthday. Mary's remark was probably meant to be taken as something like "you are over 21 now", or "you are over the age of majority now". -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| talk page!]] 18:49, October 19, 2012 (UTC) :Now, allow me to respond from yours. For one thing, the whole Sybil's birthdate is "around June"; that can be inferred due to the Crawley Family returning from London in JUNE. It's never outright stated her birthdate is in June, and Mary's statement makes her birthdate LIKELY to be EARLIER than June, probably around March or early April, as that would fit with Mary's statement of Sybil being "21 now" in April 1919. It;s ROBERT'S statement that throws the doubt onto it, as Sybil doesn't correct Mary in 1919, does she? She would have corrected Mary on her age if Mary was wrong, after all; Lord Grantham only says Sybil is 24, AFTER SHE IS DEAD and everyone is to shocked/distraught/furious at Robert to correct him. :As for Patrick's date, look at the evidence. :1919 Violet says "Oh, don't be, don't be. It was a WEDDING PRESENT from a frightful aunt, I have HATED IT FOR HALF A CENTURY"; this, without a doubt, places Violet's marriage in 1869, agree? Violet's page on this wiki (which was added on when the page was created - I remember seeing it) states "Violet, now COUNTESS, gave birth to two children, Robert, in 1869, and Rosamund in 1870." :This ALL BUT CONFIRMS that Patrick '''''WAS Earl in 1869 - there's also the fact that Robert was made to marry someone rich as the estate was impoverished: Surely Patrick would have had to have done the same, which is why he married when ALREADY Earl, there was no pressure on him: He could marry for love if he wanted to. So, as seen from this information, Patrick WAS Earl BEFORE ''he married Violet, meaning that she was Countess from 1869 - 1899 when her husband passed away and Cora became Countess and Violet became Dowager Countess. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:42, October 19, 2012 (UTC) ::Robert is her father; he's bound to know his own daughter's age as well as Mary. Either way the determination of Sybil's birth year seems to be a mit murky -- I personally think that Fellowes made a mistake with the dates, as they don't add up at all. Now matter how you put it, all of the possible years (1896, 1897, 1898) go against something that has been said elsewhere in the series. That being said, I think Sybil's article should list her birth year as "c. 1896 or 1898", given the contradictory evidence (unless we are going by the most recent information, I don't know, but I think the other solution is best). ::As for Patrick's death year: I do not question that Violet and Patrick married in 1869. We both agree on this. What I do question is '''how do we know that he was Earl by then? ::You say that Violet's article currently states that she became Countess upon her marriage in 1869 -- but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I could go ahead and edit the article, so it said that Violet was actually a Scottish witch born in 1935 who headed "an exclusive boarding school" in the 1990s, but that wouldn't be right. My point is: you cannot prove a canonical fact from the series with information you (meaning, the users of this wiki) wrote. Theme wikis are a repository of facts and factoids, but they should never be used as their own sources (that reminds me: How on Earth do we know that Violet was born in 1845? But I digress). ::I do not question the validity of the scenario you present (that Patrick was already Earl when he married Violet). As conceivable as it may be, my point is it is never outright stated in canon and it's '''not' the only way things could've happened'': you could only presume the circumstances around the marriage were as you say if you could absolutely and beyond reasonable doubt disprove that Patrick might've been Viscount Downton when he married, and become Earl in the few years that followed. Presuming is speculation in our behalf, it's misleading and it's fallacious. Who's to say it happened that way? Only Fellowes. And he hasn't (as far as I know, of course). And until he does, we cannot take that scenario as fact. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| talk page!]] 00:03, October 20, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with the Sybil thing; put "1896(references) or 1898(references)" and leave it at that until it's DEFINITELY confirmed. ::While I understand that we could '''''ASSUME Patrick was NOT EARL, there's one GLARING fact; Robert married Cora to save Downton which was hinted to be LONG impoverished; if Patrick WAS NOT EARL ''when he married Violet, he would not have been able to marry her; he would have had to have married someone rich chosen by his parents to keep Downton going, meaning he ''WAS, without a doubt, Earl in 1869, meaning he died, without a doubt, in 1899. See? 1899 IS ''Patrick's death, without a single shred of doubt; it all fits and is the most likely date. ::As for Violet being born in 1845, I think the reference came from a twitter page. We know she definitely ''WAS born between 1840 and 1850 - we can work this out from two things: 1, Violet's sister, Roberta, fought in Lucknown in 1857; she had to be at LEAST 17, meaning that 1840 was the latest Roberta could be born and be old enough to fight at Lucknow. Violet could not be born any later than 1850, as she would not be old enough to be "pursued" by Lord Hepworth's father in the late 1860s where she'd be 17 and 18 before marriage, then 19 on marriage in 1869 (Robert is then born soon after marriage and Rosamund in 1870) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:35, October 20, 2012 (UTC) ::Would this be alright for the page?: Patrick Crawley, 5th Earl of Grantham (b. in or before 1851Robert was born in 1869, so his father would have to be at least 18, making 1851 the latest Patrick can be born. - d. between 1899Violet and Patrick married in 1869, and Violet ran Downton for "Thirty Years", meaning that 1899 is the earliest that Patrick could have died. and 1912Robert was in charge of Downton in 1912, meaning his father was dead by that date.) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:26, October 20, 2012 (UTC) :::1899 is, I agree with you, the most likely date, but as it isn't definitely given in the series, I think we should tend to err on the side of caution (after all, how would we know that the Earldom was long impoverished? The Earl before Patrick could've just made a financial blunder just like Robert did in 1920). Anyway, I think the way you worded the possible death years is just fine. :) :::One thing I do not agree with you is that we can presume that someone is 18 by the time of their children's birth or at the time they were "pursued". This is not always the case, as you'll agree with me -- as there are so many cases of pregnancies in people younger than 18 -- even more so in the mid-19th century (when things like that could've just as conceivably happened in their early teens). That being said, I do not agree that we can conclusively prove that Violet's latest possible birth year is 1850 (this one's a bit more tricky, as we do not have any other references as to how old Patrick was in relation to Violet -- although, given Violet's disdain for Edith and Strallan's wedding, I wouldn't say that their age difference was too much). What I think the pages should say is that Violet was born in "c. 1840s or 1850s" (a guesstimate based on Roberta's age and Lord Hepworth's father "pursuing" of her in the late '60s), and I think Patrick's should ommit a birth year altogether, reading just "d. between 1899 and 1912" (unless it just says "born before 1869", as it is the earliest date we know for certain he was alive). -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| talk page!]] 15:11, October 20, 2012 (UTC) :::I've changed both the pages; hope they are alright. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:20, October 20, 2012 (UTC) :::Looks much better to me. Keep in mind, too, that if Fellowes goes ahead with his rumored plans for the prequel series depicting Robert and Cora's courtship and marriage, we may get more hard information on some of these questions. Dragonrider2 (talk) 21:36, October 20, 2012 (UTC) :::Yeah, if he goes ahead with it, we may actually GET an actor for Patrick and Isidore.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:21, October 20, 2012 (UTC) ::::Everything's fine, thank you for the colloquy! By the way, I think we all agree that if Fellowes went ahead with the prequel thing it'd be awesome! Perhaps we'd even get an actor for James Crawley and his "nasty" mother (who, I'd wager, would have had some really funny confrontations with Violet) -- not to mention some closure on Violet's side of the family. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| talk page!]] 00:06, October 21, 2012 ::::I think Roberta lives in India: Violet made no indication of her sister coming back from Lucknow after the battle - again, she made no indication of her NOT returning. Also, Susan's page needs editing to say she came to Downton at least once; Violet mentions it "She must have forgotten about the distance between the girls' rooms and the bachelors corridor." - whenever I add it in CestWhat deletes it. Could you add it in please? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:40, October 21, 2012 (UTC) Explain threat Could you kindly explain this: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Hugh_MacClare,_Marquess_of_Flintshire?diff=14386&oldid=14381 "CestWhat, this is a VALID reference link. Remove it, and I will hurt you, for I have written this in before, and you have removed it." You do know that a threat like this could get you perma-banned from all of Wikia and not just a specific wiki? -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 25 Oct 2012 10:59 AM Pacific :You didn't need to post the reference. I would have known what you meant it you had just written "What did you mean by this threat" - but thank you for clarifying. :I should have thought it obvious. I'd written this in before, with valid reference links (e.g. Cora knowing who Susan is, Violet saying that Susan had been to Downton before, and it having to be AFTER 1889, again, since Cora KNOWS who Susan is and WOULDN'T if she had visited before 1889 as Cora and Robert weren't married before 1889. The threat was a way of preventing CestWhat from removing it, as he/she (again, can someone PLEASE tell me the gender?!) has removed it SEVERAL TIMES before. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:31, October 25, 2012 (UTC) ::That explains why you were upset, but it does not give any rational reason for the threat "I will hurt you". Not that I expect one. If you were smart, you would begin apologizing profusely to CestWhat and ask for forgiveness. A wiki is no place for threats of bodily harm and barely a place for threats of any sort. Would the same sort of threat work on you? If so, that makes me very sad. ::Until you demonstrate that you understand why making this threat was wrong rather than trying to defend your actions based on what amounts to trivia, you will never get my support to be an admin. ::Please think carefully again about why you feel you needed to make that threat and answer again. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 26 Oct 2012 3:58 PM Pacific ::Upset? Upset? No. I'm not upset. I'M FREAKING APOPLECTICALLY ANGRY at CestWhat. I made the threat because it worked: CestWhat HASN'T removed the valid references like he/she did before - please, someone tell me his/her gender!; as for apologising to CestWhat, I've already explained to him/her that I will ''apologise, but ''ONLY when he/she apologises for the canon information removed in about June (I'm not sure if that month is right, but the removal of Canon information is). Since I have had no apology yet, I will not be apologising. When he/she apologises for what he/she did, then I ''will apologise for my actions. Ok? I ''AM willing to compromise, but I will NOT ''be made to apologise without receiving one myself. Once CestWhat apologises (and I mean down on all fours kissing my shoes and begging me for forgiveness) then I will apologise. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:11, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ''